Alleged serial killer pleads not guilty in 1973 murder case | Town Square | Palo Alto Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Alleged serial killer pleads not guilty in 1973 murder case

Original post made on Dec 3, 2019

A former Stanford hospital medical technician pleaded not guilty on Monday morning for the 1973 murder of a 21-year-old Stanford University graduate.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, December 2, 2019, 10:24 PM

Comments (18)

12 people like this
Posted by Lauren
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 3, 2019 at 7:24 am

Sentenced to six months for rape with a 5 months suspended. Way to go Santa clara county. Another failed sexual assult case. What a joke.


2 people like this
Posted by Roger
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 3, 2019 at 1:52 pm

Lauren,
Believe me I’m not trying to defend this monster,but statutory rape is defines as having sex with a minor.
There is no mention as to whether it was consensual. Nor does it mention his age at the time.


6 people like this
Posted by link
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 3, 2019 at 6:04 pm

@Roger,
I think there was a previous story - apparently it was a serious miscarriage of justice against the girl at the time. It was not consensual.


12 people like this
Posted by Nick
a resident of another community
on Dec 3, 2019 at 9:49 pm

So he's been raping and murdering since he was 18, and has gotten away with most of his crimes, and lived most of his life outside of prison. What a POS.

If he's 75 in 2019, he was 31 in 1975. A 17 year old MINOR can NOT consent to sex with a 31 year old. It's still rape, and statutory rape under the law because she was a minor. Consensual sex argument would make sense if two seniors in high school (ages 17 and 18) had sex because they were boyfriend and girlfriend.


5 people like this
Posted by Lauren
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 4, 2019 at 7:38 am

@Roger Do the math on his age.. 31yr old and 17yr old. Enough said.


8 people like this
Posted by The Way Back Machine
a resident of Stanford
on Dec 4, 2019 at 12:26 pm

How could such a person (if found guilty) have lived with himself after all of these past years/decades?

It makes one's skin crawl.


2 people like this
Posted by Roger
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 4, 2019 at 1:49 pm

as I said I wasn’t defending him no question he is a monster. My response was only to one post and since no one knows the circumstances it could possibly be that the sentence in that one case was appropriate.
As for his other crimes the death penalty would be too good for him.
I’m sure I’ll get negative feedback for that too. Which will prove my point.


3 people like this
Posted by Nick
a resident of another community
on Dec 5, 2019 at 9:11 am

Roger - Are you that dense? It doesn't matter what the "circumstances" were. He was 31, and she was 17. 17 year old minors CAN'T consent to sex with ADULTS. It's ILLEGAL. Do you get it now?


2 people like this
Posted by Roger
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 6, 2019 at 9:33 am

Nick.
Please understand I’m not dense and yeah I realize that it’s illegal, but let’s imagine for a moment she said she was 22 and looked it.
His punishment in this case suggests there were some extenuating circumstances.
You missed my point completely.
Is he a monster ,sure he is,
My comment is based solely on what Lauren stated in comment one.


6 people like this
Posted by Nick
a resident of another community
on Dec 6, 2019 at 9:49 am

Considering his history of RAPE, it's ABUNDANTELY CLEAR what happened in 1975. He RAPED her. If you can't read between the lines, you're being dense. He's a serial RAPIST.


4 people like this
Posted by Roger
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 7, 2019 at 8:54 am

It wasn’t clear in 1975, but you can’t see that can you.


1 person likes this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 7, 2019 at 9:50 am

Posted by Roger, a resident of Evergreen Park

>> It wasn’t clear in 1975, but you can’t see that can you.

Give it up, Roger. You can't win this one. You know too much history, and, you don't have 20/20 hindsight.


2 people like this
Posted by Roger
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 7, 2019 at 11:51 am

im Not trying to win one but in 1975 he had no record in this country so his sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. It’s great to have 20/20 hindsight and yes it would have been good if he’d been locked up forever in 75 .
And why can’t anon be real.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 7, 2019 at 12:25 pm

Posted by Anon, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> Give it up, Roger. You can't win this one. You know too much history, and, you don't have 20/20 hindsight.

Moderator: Please remove my post above.


2 people like this
Posted by R. Ortiz
a resident of Menlo Park
on Dec 7, 2019 at 3:29 pm

>...let’s imagine for a moment she said she was 22 and looked it.

^^^Everybody lies about their age. Just ask any liquor store clerk or night club bouncer.


8 people like this
Posted by Nick
a resident of another community
on Dec 7, 2019 at 4:07 pm

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HE HAD NO RECORD IN 1975. HE WAS 31, AND HE RAPED A 17 YEAR OLD. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF SHE SAID SHE WAS OVER 18, WHICH I DOUBT. WHAT PART OF HE'S A RAPIST DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? WHAT PART OF SIX MONTHS WITH FIVE MONTHS OF SUSPENDED SENTENCE IS TOO LIGHT OF A SENTENCE DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? SIX MONTH FOR RAPE IS ABSURD!


2 people like this
Posted by Roger
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Dec 8, 2019 at 3:51 pm

Hate to repeat myself but he wasn’t charged with rape. He was charged with statutory rape which has different sentences to rape.
Again I’m not defending him I’m only talking about the first comment in this article which you have now echoed.
Probably it was a rape but that’s not what he was charged with. In hindsight he should have been but he wasn’t because they couldn’t prove straight rape.
Unless you were there at the time Nick you don’t know the circumstances, I’m assuming the court at the time did.
Which part of the system of jurisprudence don’t you get.


3 people like this
Posted by Nick
a resident of another community
on Dec 15, 2019 at 8:04 pm

Statutory rape is still RAPE, it's just rape of a minor.
Rape is rape, but if your rape someone of age, it's charged as rape. Rape of a minor is statutory rape. If you really think one month behind bars for any type of rape is a normal sentence, you're off your rocker.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.

The Nut House is back -- with a self-taught chef and Palo Alto native in the kitchen
By Elena Kadvany | 17 comments | 7,026 views

Public statues: Up or down? But does the historical importance of the individuals represented matter?
By Diana Diamond | 39 comments | 3,851 views

Bay Area and Palo Alto RHNA
By Steve Levy | 16 comments | 2,223 views

Stay Together or End the Relationship? Independence or Interdependence?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,498 views

Expanding the birthday celebration
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 630 views

 

Who is your local hero?

Whether they're grocery shopping for a neighbor or volunteering for a nonprofit, you can spread the joy and support our journalism efforts by giving them a shout-out.

Learn More